posted 03-01-2004 12:25 PM            

Interesting about the corvairs!

Nadar's not a threat and neither is he a lone ringing voice of truth! He just is out of date.

Fair trade? YES! Corporate responsiblity for taxes, fair hiring, working standards, environmental standards? YES! Jobs for Americans! YES!

posted 03-01-2004 12:42 PM            

Patrick Buchanan took away many votes from Republicans, close to the same amount as Nader took away from Democrats.

Just because soembody is older does not mean they are out of date. DiVinci, Leary, Einstein, and Messiaen are dead and old, but their ideas are still 100 years in the future.

Is Eminem a more advanced musician than Keith Emerson because one is twice the age of the other?

You get my point.

posted 03-01-2004 03:13 PM            

I do not hate Nadar! Never did! Nor do liberals!

In fact, I like him as a person!

He is out of date under the criteria I first gave which was: the Dems running this election have mentioned and are concerned about every issue he mentions! No new ground here!

I am well aware of ageism and would never presume to put that kind of judgment on anyone! His messages on issues are out of date, his so called enlightened state is not-so-enlightened nor different than the most enlightened of the Dems running!

This has nothing to do with attitudes toward those who are older in age!

Don't put words in my mouth, swamp!

And I do agree that Nadar didn't influence the Gore-Bush race, although a look at close states might prove otherwise, as Gore won the popular vote and had the Dems in Florida not been swindled out of votes the outcome would have been much different.

Your notion that "liberals hate Nadar" is a notion Mech mentioned and I never agreed that that is the case. In fact, Nadar's Raiders were and are liberals! DUH!

Are you baiting me my fine man? Not you? Oh please let it not be!

bc

posted 03-01-2004 03:37 PM            

It would seem you are assuming I meant you.

I am talking about rags like "The Nation' magazine, and some of the turncoats like Chris Hitchens, Marc Cooper, ad nauseum. They blame Nader as The Spoiler, but never mention Buchanan as a repuplican "Spoiler". Care to comment on that?

His ideas out of date? I am saying that many so-called "Modern" people seem to think that if something is newer, it is automatically more advanced. I did not mention you in particular.

Since there will be no Kucinich in the final days of the debate, who will carry the torch of Anti-Globalization into those debates? Kerry...Who voted for The Patriot Act, Iraq War 1 & 2, NAFTA/GATT, and is now talking about more police, more military, and more CIA.

No, I am not baiting you. I am stating my opinion, and there's is nothing else to it, and please don't take it personal.

posted 03-01-2004 06:33 PM            

But I am also a "liberal."

If you think the issues on the Patriot Act, immigration, job-outsourcing, terrorism and such will disappear with Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race (after the nominations) you're kind of assuming and crystal balling here, aren't you?

Won't all those issues be addressed to whoever runs? You think the public, the various organizations, and the liberal agenda against corporations and protecting civil rights will simply disappear because Kucinich and the like will be behind the scenes?

Come on!

These are issues dear to the American people, dear to all citizens and they won't go away! Kerry wants "fair trade" and yes, he doesn't want the WTO or NAFTA dismantled, but as I have said before, you'll get more discussion and openness about trade in general with a Dem administration and majority in the houses than this present one!

Kerry isn't perfect, how would you like the Busishtas for another four years?

Yes, the Netherlands has a great system and they don't put up with such archaic processes as the electoral system, either!

We have a lot of restructuring of our electing system to do! More parties, more fair financing, fair media exposure, and a final "good-bye" to the electoral college!

Think you'll have a chance at changes with Bush still in office? HUH! ?

Don't get caught up in Kerry propaganda, either! Kerry still offers more opportunity for change than the neocons!

Remember, it's not just the president who wields power in the system -- it's the whole team, the juciary as well, and the Congress!

posted 03-01-2004 07:45 PM            

YEAH RIGHT! Keep deaming.

Kucinich is about the ONLY one.

posted 03-01-2004 08:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick: If you think the issues on the Patriot Act, immigration, job-outsourcing, terrorism and such will disappear with Kucinich and Sharpton out of the race (after the nominations) you're kind of assuming and crystal balling here, aren't you?

---

Not crystal balling, but following analytical thought. If Kerry supports all you mentioned, then the logical conclusion is he will follow the rich lobbyists dictates, since he has done so in the past.

quote:

---

These are issues dear to the American people, dear to all citizens and they won't go away! Kerry wants "fair trade" and yes, he doesn't want the WTO or NAFTA dismantled, but as I have said before, you'll get more discussion and openness about trade in general with a Dem administration and majority in the houses than this present one!

---

Kerry has said he will continue globalization

quote:

---

Kerry isn't perfect, how would you like the Busishtas for another four years?

---

Kerry IS slightly better than Bush, but not much. I'll wait to make my final decision to vote for (Kerry or Indie) on Nov 1st.

posted 03-01-2004 09:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
You may not even have to make that dreaded descision Swamp!

---

Yep, Frozen BinLaden, planted WMD, voting fraud, Martial Law, or Supreme Court intervention.

posted 03-01-2004 11:02 PM            

You forgot voting manipulation through the Diebold machines! LOL!

How about power outages?

How about a power outage on voting night caused by terrorists! Wink!

How about a highjacking on voting night with a crash into a nuclear reactor?

How about a bomb exploding at the Republican convention?

How about Bin laden captured, the troops pulling out in June, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar pulling the plug on California power on voting night? You know, groping knobs?

Hey! Did you ever think of Yellowstone blowing two months before the election and a state of national emergency being called and the election put off until January? In the meantime terrorists could attack New York again and assassinate Bush then Cheney would rule!

Or how about a huge viral plague set for Oct. so most citizens are too sick to go to the polls in NOV!

Maybe the gays will revolt and out Bush for what he is! A gay blade! They'll storm the White House with decorators and do an extreme makeover of the Oval office in late sixties modern and extremely makeover Cheney's face so he looks like Tom Cruise!

Or on Halloween, the Satanists will unleash their secret lethal weapon -- Rosemary's baby who's now grown up into a demonic creep who invisibly whispers in all Democrats' ears to not vote "or you'll die!"

Or maybe the neocons will balance the budget, revamp the tax system, create jobs, and apologize for screwing the American middle class, elderly, workers,military, and the poor!

Fat chance!

Accept reality!

Kerry may not be your shine in knighting armor, but a Dem group and majority will certainly offer more opportunity for growth and change than what's in there now! We're going down regardless -- so there might as well be true compassionate patriots in office than these nazi types!

posted 03-01-2004 11:10 PM            

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

posted 03-01-2004 11:12 PM            

From Sacramento Bee

quote:

---

The Massachusetts Democrat, looking to stretch his delegate lead in Tuesday's primary election in California and voting in nine other states, said he would add 40,000 military personnel and 200,000 police and firefighters to America's ranks. The CIA, moreover, would assume the undisputed lead in intelligence efforts and would launch "a major initiative in public diplomacy" to push "the next generation of Islamic youth" toward democracy, he said.

---

posted 03-01-2004 11:16 PM            

HERE YA GO JOHN...

JOHN KERRY: "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try? ... According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ... Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents..." (Oct. 9, 2002)

LINK:

posted 03-01-2004 11:17 PM            

This does not mean that I believe that there aren’t any “good guys” on the Dem’s side – there are! What I am talking about is the globalization agenda that permeates through ancient Illuminati Bloodlines. These bloodlines run through U.S. Government officials (including our Presidents), bank and business families, military personnel, and media owners. And yes, these same bloodlines run through the Bush and Clinton veins. I recently read that 34 (of 43) President’s bloodlines go back genetically to Charlemagne. This is a whole subject in itself and I will not get into it here. Suffice it to say, that GOOD GUYS like D. Kucinich, R. Paul, S. Ritter, to name a few, do exist but are currently outnumbered.

********************

Re: Executive Order 12919 (FEMA). I chose my link re: FEMA very carefully - http://www.apfn.org/apfn/shadow.htm . If a reader bothered to take the time to read it, they would have seen toward the bottom the following (I added the President’s name in parenthesis after the EO #):

Clinton's Executive Order 12919 (The Idaho Observer, May, 1997) gives the president the power to declare an emergency which instantly gives FEMA the authority to take control of the things listed in this article. EO 12919 is just one more clue that should tell Americans what "our" federal government has in store for all of us.—The Idaho Observer

Here are a few EXECUTIVE ORDERS associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a presidential pen:

#10990 (Kennedy -D) allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

#10995 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

#10997 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals, public and private.

#10998 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to take over all food supplies and resources, public and private, including farms and equipment.

#11000 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to mobilize American civilians into work brigades under government supervision; allows the government to split up families if they believe it necessary.

#11001 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions and facilities, both public and private.

#11002 (Kennedy - D) designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons: men, women and children, for government service.

# 11003 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

#11004 (Kennedy - D) allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned as "unsafe", and establish new locations for populations.

#11005 (Kennedy - D) allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.

#11051 (Kennedy - D) specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all EOs into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

#11310 (Johnson - D) grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in EOs, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

#11049 (Kennedy - D) assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative EOs issued over a fifteen year period.

# 11921 (Ford - R) allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that WHEN A STATE OF EMERGENCY IS DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS CANNOT REVIEW THE ACTION FOR SIX MONTHS.

Jersey: The above list does not include # 10999 although it should, so I am adding it.

# 10999 (Kennedy - D) Federal seizure of all means of transportation, including cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and water ways.

Jersey: Executive Order 12919 was written to cover the above EOs. One thing EO 12919 does not do is define what a state of national emergency is. Here is a Law Dictionary definition: A state of national crisis; a situation demanding immediate and extraordinary national or federal action. Congress has made little or no distinction between a "state of national emergency" and a "state of war".

As Shatoga pointed out, Emergency Powers given to President Roosevelt (D) in 1933, remains in force and the function of our government is suspended. Read this Senate Report for further info - http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm - here are the first 3 paragraphs:

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt (D) in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman (D) on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon (R) on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

Jersey: This agenda’s been around for a while huh?

********************

Re: NAFTA – ugh! The free trade system is nothing but a scam designed to line the pockets of the wealthy. January 2004 was NAFTA’s 10 year anniversary. Read the 10 year track record here - http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_jobs.pdf - here is the introduction and the first 3 paragraphs:

January 1, 2004 marks the tenth anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s implementation. NAFTA promoters - including many of the world’s largest corporations - promised it would create hundreds of thousands of new high-wage U.S. jobs, raise living standards in the U.S., Mexico and Canada, improve environmental conditions and transform Mexico from a poor developing country into a booming new market for U.S. exports. NAFTA opponents - including labor, environmental, consumer and religious groups - argued that NAFTA would launch a race-to-the-bottom in wages, destroy hundreds of thousands of good U.S. jobs, undermine democratic control of domestic policy-making and threaten health, environmental and food safety standards.

Why such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment - never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods between countries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils. NAFTA required limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.

Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement. They made their pie-in-the-sky promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term “free trade” attached to it. Now, ten years later, the time for conjecture and promises is over: the data are in and they clearly show the damage NAFTA has wrought for millions of people in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Thankfully, the failed NAFTA model - a watered down version of which is also contained in the World Trade Organization (WTO) - is merely one among many options. Throughout the world, people suffering with the consequences of this disastrous experiment are organizing to demand the better world we know is possible. But, we face a race against time. The same interests who got us into NAFTA are now pushing to expand it and lock in 31 more countries in Latin American and the Caribbean through the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and five Central American countries through a Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Ten years of economic data belie the promises of broad economic benefits that NAFTA’s promoters used to sell the pact to a skeptical U.S. public. We were promised that NAFTA would result in a growing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico that would create new U.S. jobs. Instead NAFTA has turned a modest U.S. trade surplus with Mexico into a huge new NAFTA trade deficit and the U.S. trade deficit with Canada has increased fivefold. We were promised 170,000 new U.S. jobs would be created annually by NAFTA. When unprecedented U.S. economic growth in the 1990s created jobs at a fairly rapid rate, the hundreds of thousands of fulltime, high-wage, benefit-paying manufacturing jobs that were being lost to NAFTA were masked. But the U.S. lost three million manufacturing jobs — 1 in 6 jobs in that sector — during NAFTA and some 525,000 U.S. workers have been specifically certified as NAFTA job-loss victims under just one narrow government retraining program.

NAFTA’s rules provided new incentives to relocate production: “foreign investors”— meaning U.S. companies relocating to Mexico — received both special investor protections and preferential access for finished products shipped back to the U.S. Meanwhile, many workers who have lost high-wage, benefits-paying manufacturing jobs have only found new work in service sector positions that typically pay 23-77 percent less than their previous wages and offer few or no benefits. NAFTA’s transformation of the kinds of jobs available to the 75 percent of Americans who do not have a college degree has contributed to stagnant wage levels that have destroyed the economic security of millions of American families. From 1946-73, there was an 80% gain in median wages. Yet from 1973- 2000, U.S. median wages have been almost flat, even though trade now represents two times the share of U.S. economic activity than it did thirty years ago.

And, after ten years of NAFTA the prediction of trade theory — that increased trade liberalization will increase income inequality — has become reality, with stark empirical data revealing disparities not seen since the Robber Baron age. As economic growth slowed in recent years, NAFTA’s full wreckage has emerged. In every region of the country, towns have been devastated by serial plant closings, mass layoffs, the slow death of main street businesses once patronized by the suddenly unemployed, and the consequent crash in tax revenues that once supported local schools, hospitals and other essential services. The outrage of millions of Americans hurt by our failed trade policy as catapulted the issue to the top of the Democratic presidential primary debate.

Jersey: Nothing but empty promises!

********************
Re: Executive Order 13083 - http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/EOs/eo_13132.html - as Thomas Jefferson said - the Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution. It says: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution does not give the government a specific power, then it DOES NOT have it.

Section 2c does not affirm the Tenth Amendment, it merely defines the principle. After that point is where the loop holes begin. In a nutshell, the order gives an acting agency power over the state if state rules conflict with federal law. If the agency “consults” with the state first, they can ignore the state and proceed without state input or approval. Section 6 is where these exceptions are listed.

posted 03-02-2004 08:26 AM            

People would detest him so much, that they would vote for a Kielbasy if it ran against Bush.

posted 03-02-2004 12:28 PM            

Kerry:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/8350513p-9280396c.html

quote:

---

He also promised to make the United States "energy independent" from the Middle East within 10 years "so our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it."

---

This is not a globalizaiton statement! Because he wants to increase troops domestically, does not mean he's FOR the Patriot Act. It also does not mean he's FOR the neocon agenda of imperialistic globalization!

Mech, your quotes were from Oct. 2002! He believed the administration and has apologized for it! Move on!

Kucinich is the best! I agree and always did!

yesterday's Kucinich e-mail:

Jobs Central Issue for Super Tuesday

Tomorrow is "Super Tuesday." Democratic voters in ten states (CT, CA, GA, MD, MA, MN, NY, OH, RI, VT) will head to the polls to vote. Jobs have become the central issue in this primary election. Today, speaking in his home town at the City Club of Cleveland, Kucinich challenged the positions of Kerry and Edwards on trade and outlined what needs to be done to keep American jobs at home. The WTO and NAFTA have caused millions of American jobs to be shipped overseas. Only Kucinich has the courage to admit that NAFTA and the WTO cannot be fixed; he has pledged to repeal both as his first act in office.

"We Need Trade"

Dennis Kucinich talks about our loss of industry and how to bring it back. Watch the City Club video, listen to the audio, or read the transcript at http://www.kucinich.us/trade-030104.php .

Windows: Modem | Broadband
Quicktime: Modem | Broadband
Real Player: Modem | Broadband
Audio Only (mp3)

New Materials Available for Download

We have new issues pages at www.kucinich.us for AIDS, Social Security and Pension Protection, and Job Outsourcing. We also have an updated page for Jobs Programs/Infrastructure and an updated candidates comparison chart on the four remaining candidates. PDFs are available for printing out as flyers. Check our downloads page at www.kucinich.us/supporter_resources/dwnldissues.php regularly to find new materials.

Oscar Award-winner Sean Penn Throws Party for Kucinich

On February 28, Dennis Kucinich was feted at Hollywood power players Mike and Irina Medevoy's home in Beverly Hills. The event was hosted by this year's Best Actor Oscar winner Sean Penn and attended by stars including Shirley MacLaine, Alicia Silverstone, Danny DeVito, Sylvester Stallone, Robin Wright Penn, Edward Asner, Mimi Kennedy, Shelley Morrison, James Cromwell, Esai Morales, David Baerwald and 21 Grams Director Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Click here to contribute to Kucinich for President online.

Please forward this Email quickly and widely.
(Delete the opt-out link at the very bottom, so that no one accidentally cancels your subscription.)

If you received this Email from a friend and would like to receive them directly, click here: http://kucinich.us/alerts-signup.htm

Contact us:
Kucinich for President
11808 Lorain Avenue - Cleveland, OH 44111
216-889-2004 / 866-413-3664 (toll-free) http://www.kucinich.us

To remove yourself from all mailings from Kucinich For President, please click here

posted 03-02-2004 01:25 PM            

If it looks close......We vote for Kerry

New Jersey Primary.....We Vote for Kucinich

posted 03-02-2004 05:44 PM            

e-mail:

Dear friend,

By all accounts, the Presidential election in November will be extremely close. While Senators John Kerry and John Edwards appear to be pulling ahead of President Bush in some polls, the race is still a statistical dead heat. This is especially true when the complicated mathematics of the electoral college are factored in - let's not forget how Bush became President in 2000 despite losing the popular vote.

In this light, we find Ralph Nader's decision to enter the race disappointing and perplexing. While Nader has no realistic chance of winning the race, his involvement could drain precious votes from the Democratic candidate and tip the balance toward Bush, much as it did in 2000.

We are calling for Nader to drop out of the race. We urge you to join us by signing the petition below. Regardless of your feelings about Nader's character or distinguished career in public service, this race is simply too important to risk on a symbolic candidacy.

President George W. Bush has been a disaster for the United States and the world. He unjustly ordered American troops to invade Iraq at great cost of lives and dollars. He has alienated longtime allies, undermined the United Nations and repudiated treaties. His policies at home have been no better. He must be defeated in November. Please join us in urging Ralph Nader to drop out of the race so we can give President Bush a one-way ticket back to Texas.

Sincerely,
John Isaacs and Guy Stevens

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ralph Nader:
As committed individuals who advocate responsible national security policy, we are disappointed and perplexed by your decision to launch your campaign for the presidency. We call on you to stop this misguided effort.

President George W. Bush has been a disaster for the United States and the world. He unjustly ordered American troops to invade Iraq at great cost of lives and dollars. He has alienated longtime allies, undermined the United Nations and repudiated treaties.

At home, he has curtailed civil liberties, weakened standards on air pollution and food and water safety, appointed radical right wing judges, restricted a woman's right to choose, passed huge tax cuts for his wealthy supporters and now threatens our Medicare system.

George W. Bush is unfit to be President of the United States. George W. Bush told the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but that was not true. He told the world that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda, but that was not true. He claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program, but that was not true.

The stakes are simply too high. We cannot afford another four years of George W. Bush. Your candidacy only serves to help his re-election campaign by dividing those who oppose him. Let's unite behind the achievable and vital goal defeating George W. Bush in November.

Sincerely,

___________________

posted 03-02-2004 06:09 PM            

I'm sorry Ralph Nader is going to run for president. I hope no one wastes his or her votes on him or on any other third- or fourth-party candidates. Nader knows he can't win, so he must be in it just for the ego and the media attention.

Let's look at reality. One, and only one, of two men will occupy the White House for the next four years. Those two men are George Bush and John Kerry. Like it or not, that's going to be our choice, barring any fatal mishaps – God forbid – between now and Inauguration Day.

If you plan to vote for anyone else, you might just as well stay home, as your vote will be meaningless. Progressives should certainly have learned from their last experience that voting for Nader put Bush in the White House. In earlier elections, disgruntled conservatives voted for Ross Perot and ended up with Bill Clinton.

Voting is not intended to be a way to send a message. If that's what you want to do, use Western Union or e-mail. Voting is intended to select political leaders, and as far as the presidency is concerned, we will have the choice of either Kerry or Bush.

Which of those you choose is your business. My only suggestion is that it is always a good idea to vote against incumbents. Certainly the Congress (all of the House and a third of the Senate will be up for re-election) could stand a good stable cleaning. Congress is so encrusted with special interests it's a wonder any of them can breathe for the stink.

You can hardly go wrong voting against an incumbent.

Karl Rove and the cabal of neoconservatives who are the puppeteers who make Bush's lips move will try to frighten you into returning him to office. Like Saddam Hussein's mythical weapons of mass destruction, this crowd will yap about terrorists out to "destroy" the United States.

Listen, dearly beloved, not all the terrorists in the world have any chance in hell or heaven of destroying the United States. They are hunting an elephant with a BB gun. Terrorism is about frustration and anger stemming from impotence. If terrorism could destroy a nation, Israel wouldn't exist and Northern Ireland would be free from British rule.

I sent one of Fox News' fear-mongers into a raving rant just by pointing out that those homegrown criminals of ours killed three times more Americans than Osama bin Laden did in 2001. Heck, five times as many Americans died from falls as from those terrorists' attacks. Every year about 90,000 Americans die in accidents.

The reason the terrorist attack got our attention, aside from the usual media hysteria, was that it shook us out of our false sense of security. Most Americans had long since believed that we, here in the continental United States, were immune to attack. We never were, but when bin Laden proved it, it shook up a whole lot of us. All of a sudden the death and destruction wasn't someplace else. It was here at home.

Hopefully the hysteria has subsided and people can now look more calmly and rationally at the problem and thus not allow the Bush campaign and its media lapdogs to scare them into re-electing Bush. After all, the terrorist attack occurred on his watch.

But whether you prefer Bush or Kerry, just remember that Nader and all the other oddballs that might get on some ballots are completely irrelevant. You might as well stare at your navel as vote for them.

It wouldn't take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce that I'm not going to vote for Bush, though I'm far from pleased as punch about the choice. Nevertheless, it is important that every American turn out this year and vote for either the Republican or the Democrat. Who runs this country in these shaky times is important. And it's not going to be Nader.

March 2, 2004

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years, reporting on everything from sports to politics. From 1969–71, he worked as a campaign staffer for gubernatorial, senatorial and congressional races in several states. He was an editor, assistant to the publisher, and columnist for the Orlando Sentinel from 1971 to 2001. He now writes a syndicated column which is carried on LewRockwell.com. Reese served two years active duty in the U.S. Army as a tank gunner. Write to Charley Reese at P.O. Box 2446, Orlando, FL 32802.

© 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

Charley Reese Archives

__________________

Not saying I agree with everything here, but he's right about voting. It's selecting someone for office, not making a statement!

posted 03-05-2004 01:30 PM            

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, so I'll just keep talking. I also feel that a country's government needs to be seriously overhauled every hundred years or so, not only to keep up with current technology but also to fill in all the ways people have discovered to abuse it in that amount of time.

The only reason that this government is holding onto it's old, stagnant policy so tightly is because they know this country has become so unstable that ANY REAL CHANGE stands to send us into a downward spiral.

Something I have always contemplated was a means to give the average citizen political power in the only real form there is: money. This could entail some streamlining of the system to contribute to individual campaigns, as well as lobbying, so that the collective citizen could give power to the candidates and congressmen of their choice. This would help to eliminate alot of special interest legislation.

Finally, I intend to make a point of not voting, just for anyone who may notice. I'm gonna go to the polls and sign in, walk into the ballot box and back out again, with a blank sheet. I hope this gives you an idea of the way I feel about our current situation.

posted 03-05-2004 03:21 PM            

So you're going to give a vote to Bush?

Whatever.

Don't complain then if the same administration gets back in!

And I agree with you on all of what you said about reforms! I would add to first get rid of the electoral college!